What's the alternative solution, screwtape? Do we make it a federal offense for local cops, with piss poor training and even poorer judgement, to abuse their locally-granted power? Wait, that's not half bad......

I think people need to be more involved in local government and raise a stink when the local cops want to form a SWAT team. But I don't think that is going to fix it when we have the federal government with well-intended programs (hiring war veterans as cops, donating war surplus to police, the war on drugs, etc) that do great violence to our criminal justice system. Plus, the current fcking SCOTUS. Until Scalia and Thomas drop dead (yesterday would not be soon enough), we are pretty much fucked.

It is also a cultural thing and it is sliding the wrong way. My generation grew up having to take drug tests, so for us, that is a routine, not-at-all-unconstitutional thing. Except I think it is none of my employer's goddamn business what I put into my body on the weekends or while vacationing in Amsterdam.

And the current generation is growing up putting every aspect of their stupid lives on public display and with security cameras everywhere. So for them, peeing in a cup and a total surveilance state is completely normal and a not-at-all-unconstitutional thing. Now prospective employers was access to any social media sites I might belong to. In another 10 years they will also want to send a couple of security agent to go through my house.

The current generation is also growing up with riot police driving tanks through people's houses to serve traffic summonses.

I don't know how my country got so fucked. I am starting to think it was always thus, and I am only now realizing it.

True. And the worst part of it is that we've allowed it to happen, these gradual erosions of our rights. There's no supervillian plotting to take over this country, no master plan for domination. Just a slow increase in liberties stripped, all in the name of security and safety.

Maybe it's just the natural evolution of a democratic republic, I dunno.

So, what are the options? How do we reverse the trend, if it's even reversible? How long would it take to slow the juggernaut, to stop it?

Either better marketing, or revolution. Occupy Wall Street, but on a much larger scale?

Answers are hard to come by when the majority of the populace doesn't even think to ask the questions.

The one big piece that Orwell missed in 1984 was how the consumer culture and corporate interests would team up with (and even overtake) state power. We are voluntarily giving up our legal system, democracy, rights, freedoms, autonomy, privacy and personal information to private companies who sell it and trade it just like Jack gave up his cow for a pile of magic beans. Thanks to our faith in capitalism, everything is for sale.

People have gotten caught by police because they communicated incriminating info about themselves publicly, ie on social media. My students are shocked when I tell them not to put everything they do (especially illegal activity) on Facebook. They say, but my account is locked so only my friends can see it. I ask them if they own Facebook. I tell them that their information belongs, not to them, but to anyone who is willing to buy it. Could be the US government, or a future employer or another country's government.

They do not realize it, but Microsoft, ADM, Iran or China could someday own their Facebook page.....

There seems to be some ambiguity and/or confusion in the story, or so I hope.

An officer can ask you to identify yourself if the officer knows or suspects you have violated a law, but that doesn't mean that you produce an ID card. It means that you tell the officer your name, address, date of birth, etc. The officer cannot demand an ID card if you are just a pedestrian. Driving a car is a privileged activity that requires licensure, hence the requirement to carry an ID card while driving a motor vehicle. If the woman was jaywalking and they asked her to identify herself and she refused to give them her name, address, date of birth, etc, then she can be arrested. If the officers arrested her for not producing an ID card, then they have violated her constitutional rights. There is no constitutional requirement for producing an ID card as there is no constitutional requirement for being issued an ID card.

Someone handled this situation poorly. It was either the officers or the pedestrian. Or perhaps both. If the officers told the jogger "Excuse me but you crossed in the middle of the street where it is against the laws of the city, so you can be fined for it" and she refused to identify herself then she is wrong. If on the other hand she was asked for an ID, then the officers were wrong. Even a first time speeder usually gets a warning.

A story like this does show that we need to have the means to monitor what our officers do. If the officers did nothing wrong then allowing people to know what is happening and to record it only reinforces the role our officers perform rather than undermine it.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

A two part post if I may, about surveillance and the militarization of the police force.

First I would like to bring up the Boston Marathon bombing. I feel it is because of the surveillance and the strange need for everyday individuals to Tweet every aspect of their lives that they were able to find the two d-bags that did it. I am not stating that I am a staunch supporter of big brother watching me but in this case it worked. I don’t think if it happened in 1980 or even 1990 they would have been able to catch the two bomber brothers... who's names I can't seem to remember. Grant it they caught them after the violent tragedy they caused but neither of them will be blowing anything up anytime soon. So possibly that does prevent a future crime.

My second point involves the Boston Marathon bombing as well.

The way the final drama unfolded was insane. I do not know the whole story but what I had come to understand is that the kid had a hand gun and maybe some kind of explosives. The Boston PD wasn’t sure what he was actually armed with but he was hiding in a boat in a residential area.Now I am not a cop but to my knowledge serve and protect used to be painted on the side of the patrol car. I doubt I can be convinced that unloading every fire arm available inside that residential neighborhood is protecting anyone. Stray bullets don't keep anyone safe. Not even police bullets. Again I don’t know the whole story but youtube that shoot out and tell me they all decided "hey let's take him alive." Somehow they did though so I will STFU now.

Also, at the time of the police chasing down the guy, he was still a suspect, not convicted of anything but looking like someone who might have blown up the marathon. If it had turned out that it had been another mentally ill young guy who looked like the suspect, it would have been a tragedy. Anyone might start running when he saw armed military looking people approaching him.

I know it is easy to sit back and criticize, and I am glad the guys got caught before they could do anything worse. But I do have a developmentally delayed brother who is not all there, and he has had more than his share of run-ins with security and police, mainly for being black, male and "acting in a suspicious manner". With a mental age of about 12, his normal, innocent manner in stores and other public places--being curious, talking to people animatedly, looking at kid-oriented merchandise-- was always suspicious.

Luckily, the police were not nearly as militarized when he was a teen up through his 20's, the riskiest time to be a black male in the US. Now that he is approaching 60, he is just assumed to be another urban derelict wandering the streets, and is largely left alone.

First I would like to bring up the Boston Marathon bombing. I feel it is because of the surveillance and the strange need for everyday individuals to Tweet every aspect of their lives that they were able to find the two d-bags that did it. I am not stating that I am a staunch supporter of big brother watching me but in this case it worked. I don’t think if it happened in 1980 or even 1990 they would have been able to catch the two bomber brothers... who's names I can't seem to remember. Grant it they caught them after the violent tragedy they caused but neither of them will be blowing anything up anytime soon. So possibly that does prevent a future crime.

I disagree. I don't think you can say whether or not they would have been caught wihtout surveillance. Afterall, they did catch the unibomber without a panopticon.

How do you feel about the warrantless home by home search they did in the ensuing search? Putting a whole city on lockdown to find two stupid idiots who had no real plan?

I doubt I can be convinced that unloading every fire arm available inside that residential neighborhood is protecting anyone. Stray bullets don't keep anyone safe. Not even police bullets.

I agree with this, but the trend seems to be going the other way. In NY there were two incidents in the last year or so. The first was a disgruntled former employee who shot and killed his office bully. The police followed him and shot him to death. They also shot 5 (9?) other bystanders.

Around new years they also shot a mentally ill person in Times Square (for no real good reason). They also shot at least one other bystander, an old woman I believe, in the hip. NY cops hit their intended target with about 1 in 3 shots. From what I have read, that is actually pretty good for police. I believe both of these incidents are linked in this thread. If not, they are easily researched.

This is the whole problem with the Warrior Cop mentality. They see their role in terms of combat and war. Us vs Them. They see using any means necessary as legitimate because their only concern is that of a soldier - to get out alive. But that is not what police are and we are not in a war.

We need to have a national attitude adjustment for our criminal justice system. We need to stop declaring Wars on abstractions. We need to stop putting war veterans who have shockingly high rates of mental trauma directly into civilian police forces. We need to stop giving the police free military hardware.

If I recall correctly, Dante considered it time to go shoot himself some politicians (and ostensibly cops) when elections were officially cancelled

Seems reasonable, no?

Not to rehash our conversation, but no. It strikes me as convenient because it is such an impossibly high bar that renders the whole idea of overthrowing tyranny irrelevant. I've said before, you can have a complete tyranny and still have elections. Iran, Russia and a whold bunch of other awful nations have elections. But what good does that do when people cannot point out that the vote is rigged?

And I pointed out that there are already people in this country who are kept from voting because it suits the political needs of a particular group.

I would think that a better indicator of tyranny would be how our other rights are doing. Is free speech supressed? Is the 4th amendment doing well? Are there robust protections in place to ensure fair and accurate judgments against accused criminals?

I disagree. I don't think you can say whether or not they would have been caught wihtout surveillance. Afterall, they did catch the unibomber without a panopticon.

The Unabomber and Boston Marathon bombing where two quite different events and people. The Unabomber was active between 1978 and 1995 sending 16 separate bombs. Would have modern surveillance help speed up catching him? I can't say. All the satellite imaging in the world and data collecting seem useless to me if it's nothing more than a shot in the dark. But that is just my ignorance on the subject. I will say that you are correct that many criminals have been caught in the past without looking in everyone's window. Sometimes even quickly. Perhaps with the voluntary submission of cell phone pictures and videos they might have been able to piece together a picture. But I still feel that surveillance sped up the process of finding the two nut jobs. Similar to a needle in a hay stack. Perhaps the question is how much was the process sped up and how much of a difference did it make?

Quote

How do you feel about the warrantless home by home search they did in the ensuing search? Putting a whole city on lockdown to find two stupid idiots who had no real plan?

Oh hell no! They did that? I am pretty sure the constitution is quite clear about that. Good thing there are no heavily armed "Constitution Guardians" who yell and scream about the second amendment and claim to fight tyranny and unconstitutional government actions until the death in Boston!

Quote

This is the whole problem with the Warrior Cop mentality. They see their role in terms of combat and war. Us vs Them. They see using any means necessary as legitimate because their only concern is that of a soldier - to get out alive. But that is not what police are and we are not in a war.

We are at war. We have been at war since 9/11. It isn’t a traditional war with two opposing nations clashing with the enemy clearly marked by an opposing uniform. Rather we are at war with extreme ideals. I have no idea how one wins a war against an ideology but either way we are now stuck in it.IMHO you are 100% right though. If we live in fear and allow our military industrial complex to run wild on our own back yard we will lose all the freedoms that all of us feel makes America (and Merica) exceptional. We have this crazy technology that we can use (I feel) within the parameters of the constitution. Although I feel the constitution needs a rewrite to include the technology of today.

Quote

We need to have a national attitude adjustment for our criminal justice system. We need to stop declaring Wars on abstractions. We need to stop putting war veterans who have shockingly high rates of mental trauma directly into civilian police forces. We need to stop giving the police free military hardware.

We need a national attitude adjustment on a lot of things! And yes we need to stop declaring war on abstractions and I feel focus on what are the actual threats to our national safety. But as you said that would require a national attitude adjustment.I think vets are a perfect fit for the police force. Some were even cops in the military. But you can't arm people with mental trauma. I thought that didn’t need to be said. Apparently I was wrong lol.I don’t see why a police force needs an "urban tank." Amazon the website is developing a delivery drone to drop off packages. Put a camera on that little flying robot and give it to SWAT and fire fighters for recon.

Sorry, this post was going to be more in-depth but I got stuff to do right now and have to cut it short!

How do you feel about the warrantless home by home search they did in the ensuing search? Putting a whole city on lockdown to find two stupid idiots who had no real plan?

Oh hell no! They did that? I am pretty sure the constitution is quite clear about that. Good thing there are no heavily armed "Constitution Guardians" who yell and scream about the second amendment and claim to fight tyranny and unconstitutional government actions until the death in Boston!

The police are not. Technically, neither is the nation. Congress has not declared war. And even if the authorization of force (from 2001!) counts, since when does the War Powers Act extend to the police on American soil?

ugh. No way, absolutely not. In fact, I think they should be explicitly banned from serving as police. They are accustomed to a shoot first, survival mode mentality. That is fine in war. In civil society that equals a lot of dead innocent people.

I read a great piece recently by an Iraq war vet who was a cop specifically so he get the same rush he had in war. I think we do not really want adrenaline junkies policing us. They are looking to get a fix. I'll try to find it.

The police are not. Technically, neither is the nation. Congress has not declared war. And even if the authorization of force (from 2001!) counts, since when does the War Powers Act extend to the police on American soil?

So would you say that no one is planning to blow us up as we speak? That we are not engaged with terrorism or terrorist? Would you call the war on terror a fluke or an absolute lie? Is there not actually some kind of constant threat? Are we not constantly drone striking people declared as terrorists? I feel that we are at "war" here on our soil with terror and extreme ideology. It is not the front line by any means but in today's world our no nation affiliated enemies consider American civilians as fair targets. I will also state that my opinion is that bunches of bunches of nonsense is attached to the war on terror and homeland security. I feel it has been ramped up to pretty much a knee jerk reaction. When the constitution is ignored and we start to creep into the realm of tyranny for your safety then something is wrong and it needs to be adjusted. Like I mentioned before I would like to see the modern security technology used in ways that do not trample the constitution. If that is not possible then we need to do something else. And no War Powers do not extend to police on American soil. If I have something confused or mislead you to think that is my opinion I apologize.

Quote

ugh. No way, absolutely not. In fact, I think they should be explicitly banned from serving as police. They are accustomed to a shoot first, survival mode mentality. That is fine in war. In civil society that equals a lot of dead innocent people.

Actually no. Soldiers of any kind at anytime are always subjected to the UCMJ and LOAC. http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm In case you are not aware of what LOAC is. Shoot first is not an option and is punishable under the UCMJ. I am well aware that the situations in conflicts overseas are completely different than policing here in the US (at least they used to be). Unfortunately even in societies ripe with conflict dead innocents are going to happen. As mentioned before stray bullets do not protect anyone. I am curious though as to your opinion of Vets. If a Vet has no mental trauma and experienced no combat should he or she be banned from police service? Do you feel all military personnel are of a "shoot first" mentality? Do you feel they all are a danger to society?

Quote

I read a great piece recently by an Iraq war vet who was a cop specifically so he get the same rush he had in war. I think we do not really want adrenaline junkies policing us.

I agree. But like I said is this all Vets? I can toss out some cheesy comparisons of discrimination if you like

So would you say that no one is planning to blow us up as we speak? That we are not engaged with terrorism or terrorist?

Sure. But what is war? Are the people who want to use terrorism against us actual combatants or are they simply criminals? How do you draw the line? And in wars past, we undestood a war was over when one side - usually a state of one kind or another - formally capitulated by signing a treaty. How will we know when this "war" is over? When will "al qaeda" be officially "conquored"? When they are all gone? Anyone can call themselves "al qaeda". Al qaeda is now just a meme. Anyone who hates the west is al qaeda. How do you fight a war or end a war against that?

How the hell would I know? It could all be a government conspiracy for all I know. The entire premise for war in Iraq was a ginned up lie.

I'm pretty sure all of the "terrorists" in the world put together could not form an existential threat the to the US. They are terrorists because they know this is true. They cannot beat us, so they use fear to make us beat ourselves. We are such pussies that we have done more damage to ourselves in the name of security than they ever could have done to us.

I have no opinion in general. There are specific veterans I love. I am related to one who seems fine and well adjusted, but he was not in combat. I am related to another who was in combat and suffers PTSD. Neither he nor I would want him to be a cop.

No. I may use generalizations, but they are generalizations. I do not mean literally all. My cursory understanding of the programs that place vets into the police is that there is little to no screening. And any screening the military does, seems to be terrible.

Sure. But what is war? Are the people who want to use terrorism against us actual combatants or are they simply criminals? How do you draw the line? And in wars past, we undestood a war was over when one side - usually a state of one kind or another - formally capitulated by signing a treaty. How will we know when this "war" is over? When will "al qaeda" be officially "conquored"? When they are all gone? Anyone can call themselves "al qaeda". Al qaeda is now just a meme. Anyone who hates the west is al qaeda. How do you fight a war or end a war against that?

War is large scale conflict. And terrorists are apparently combatants because they don’t require a civil legal trial. I guess this now applies to American citizens overseas involved with terror groups who we can't seem to snatch.I don’t believe one can win a war against an ideology. There is no country to bomb, sanction, or president to negotiate with. Just splintered groups with extreme ideologies who IMO enjoy watching the world burn.Also I don’t think we can just exit this war on terror. Just like I doubt Israel will ever rid itself of terrorism (whole other topic).

Quote

I would call it a misnomer.

Perhaps. I feel there is a real threat and if the government and related departments ignored it there would be more attacks on US soil. Maybe war isn’t an accurate title.

Quote

How the hell would I know? It could all be a government conspiracy for all I know. The entire premise for war in Iraq was a ginned up lie.

TRUE. That really muddies up the waters when we can't believe our government goes to actual war for actual reasons.

Quote

I'm pretty sure all of the "terrorists" in the world put together could not form an existential threat the to the US.

Do you mean destroy the US as a whole? Or destroy whatever it is they don’t like about us? I agree with that, but they have and can kill US citizens here in our country.

Quote

They are terrorists because they know this is true. They cannot beat us, so they use fear to make us beat ourselves. We are such pussies that we have done more damage to ourselves in the name of security than they ever could have done to us.

Then by your statement I would say they are winning or at least doing well. Yet I think the threat is real because it has happened before, why wouldn’t it happen again?

Quote

Sure, but I would categorize that as a war crime or a human rights violation. I would like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest, and even Obama taken to the Hague and tried.

I would say you have some legitimate complaints.

Quote

No. I may use generalizations, but they are generalizations. I do not mean literally all. My cursory understanding of the programs that place vets into the police is that there is little to no screening. And any screening the military does, seems to be terrible.

The Mil screening is most likely pretty bad. I know nothing of the police screening. I would assume that a screening for becoming a police officer would be pretty rigorous. But like I said I don’t know, yet I agree anyone with mental trauma shouldn’t be armed or a cop.

Quote

And given their high rates of suicide, they should be kept from guns.

Surprisingly I don’t know what to think of that. Does a person have the right to harm themselves and if not how do you screen for that? Is depression a legit reason to deny someone a second amendment right or privilege. If so at what level? But that is a completely different subject and I don’t want to derail the thread.

And terrorists are apparently combatants because they don’t require a civil legal trial.

No, no. That is backward. They don't require a civil trial because right now the establishment says we are at war. I am challenging that idea and in doing so I am asking you for a precise definition of what war is.

Can non-state entities be at war? See also the edit to my above post. Are we at war with those turds, or are they just a couple run-of-the-mill asshole criminals with delusions of grandeur?

You offer a false choice. I didn't say we should stop trying to pursue terrorists. I think we should stop blowing up wedding parties and funerals with drones, however.

To get back on track, what initiated this part of the conversation was you saying "we are at war" in my response to my concern over the Warrior Cop mentality. I see your response as a non sequitur. I don't accept that we are at war legally, but even if we are, so what? How does that justify the current state of affairs with police?

I agree with that, but they have and can kill US citizens here in our country.

So what? We kill more US citizens every year. We spent $3 TRILLION on our War on Terror because 19 assholes killed about 3,000 people. In that same span of time, more than 300,000 Americans died from guns. What did we spend on that? In roughly that same period of time 425,000 American died in traffic accidents.[2] How much did we spend on that? This leaves out all the other things we could have done with that money, like education, building infrastructure, etc. Kripes, man, we could have paid every muslim in the world $1,000 and it would have been cheaper and gotten us better good will.

Let's be smart and fight the bad guys, but only commensurate to the risk they pose.

Just kudos to everyone here for a thoughtful and civilized discussion of these issues.

We have lots of returned vets at my college. (Funny how the military does not prepare folks for well-paying jobs in civilian life.) I would say that I have had at least one in every single class I have taught in the past ten years. Usually more than one. Male, female, recently discharged short-timer, retired career military, US, foreign.[1] Most probably should be in some kind of mental health treatment, and are not. A few are likely of the "walking time bomb" variety.

I had an older Asian vet (who had evidently seen/done way too much bad war stuff) in one of my classes.[2]His PTSD got triggered by bad news about Afghanistan. Once he went off on our building secretary and had to be escorted out of the building. He was scary. Is he dangerous? Who knows?

Another much younger baby-faced latino guy had also seen/done too much war stuff in Iraq. He had the thousand mile stare. Whenever he spoke about his military service he would shift into "robot-speech mode". He was scary. Is he dangerous? Who knows?

Still another two returned long-time military buddies always sit together in the back row. If there are no open seats in the back row, they will stand if they have to. Because they cannot have anyone where they can't see them. They have told me this in office hours. They have also told me they have no fear and can take care of themselves in any situation. One of them shifts his eyes left to right every few minutes. It's unnerving. They are scary. Are they dangerous? Who knows?

Problem is, if ever one of these folks goes postal and shoots up the campus, the media will crucify all of us professors, staff, and administrators. "You clearly saw the signs and did nothing?" But what are we supposed to do? We are not qualified as mental health professionals. We are not trained to work with former combat vets. As a public institution, we cannot discriminate against anyone just because we think they might someday do something.

The gun advocates say more of us faculty and students should be armed on campus. We should not have to wait for uniformed security staff or city police to take down anyone who goes off. When colleges object to that 'solution' people think it must be because we are all a bunch of wussy, anti-American, 2nd Amendment hating libruls who want the students in our care to die.

Well, yeah, there is that.

What we need is more guns in nervous, random, untrained hands--more possible stray bullets, more smoke, more ricochet, more confusion and sound distortion. Sure.

With a large, spread out campus of thousands of students aged 16-60+, a day care facility with little kids, lots of foreign exchange kids, plus refugees and immigrants taking ESL classes[3], and oh yes plenty of beautiful large trees, low bushes, and scattered varying height buildings providing lots of hiding places for the shooter, what could possibly go wrong?

I even taught a Palestinian woman who had served in the Israeli military. She was short, no-nonsense, and kick-a$$, a gorgeous brick house who dressed like a model for Playboy. Imagine an Arab Jane Russell. Only more busty. I doubt many of the guys learned much in that class.

How large must it be? Do the Jets and Sharks qualify?[1] How about the IRA over yonder in Northern Ireland? When all was said and done, the IRA consisted of about 400 guys. That's it.

Al qaeda is a couple thousand people world wide, tops, and most of them don't care all that much about us but with their own governments.

Was there ever a war as dramatic as the Sharks and Jets? If so then could they dance as intimidating as the Sharks and Jets did?Yeah I would consider those a war I suppose. Although I think a dictionary could possibly prove me wrong.

Quote

No, no. That is backward. They don't require a civil trial because right now the establishment says we are at war. I am challenging that idea and in doing so I am asking you for a precise definition of what war is.

Ah I see! No war no combatants, no combatants then we are just killing a bunch of people. I guess then it would boil down to who decides what is war and who we are at war with. If I understand you correctly. I don’t believe much of that kind of talk has taken place. A war on terror was declared, we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, now we are droning people.

Quote

Can non-state entities be at war? See also the edit to my above post. Are we at war with those turds, or are they just a couple run-of-the-mill asshole criminals with delusions of grandeur?

If we are not at war with them what do you propose we should do about terrorist and those with a ways and means to harm us?

Quote

You offer a false choice. I didn't say we should stop trying to pursue terrorists. I think we should stop blowing up wedding parties and funerals with drones, however.

My bad it wasn’t my intention to claim you feel we shouldn’t pursue terrorists. I do however obviously agree that we should stop blowing up innocent people. I don’t think the proportionality of innocents to a specific target add up if it involves killing an entire wedding party full of innocent people.

Quote

To get back on track, what initiated this part of the conversation was you saying "we are at war" in my response to my concern over the Warrior Cop mentality. I see your response as a non sequitur. I don't accept that we are at war legally, but even if we are, so what? How does that justify the current state of affairs with police?

The average cop on the street I think is still a cop on the street. I don’t think much has changed for them on the whole. The FBI, NSA, and CIA I think are the ones greatly changed as they are the ones charged with keeping up with these people.Even if the police were to raid a discovered terrorist home I don’t think it would be much different than busting a crack house or any other facility used illegally.

Quote

So what? We kill more US citizens every year. We spent $3 TRILLION on our War on Terror because 19 assholes killed about 3,000 people. In that same span of time, more than 300,000 Americans died from guns. What did we spend on that? In roughly that same period of time 425,000 American died in traffic accidents.[2] How much did we spend on that? This leaves out all the other things we could have done with that money, like education, building infrastructure, etc. Kripes, man, we could have paid every muslim in the world $1,000 and it would have been cheaper and gotten us better good will.

Fucking tragic right? You left out the casualties from the Iraq war that we both agreed was BS. I know it wouldn't have happened if the war on terror never started. They even tried to link Saddam to terrorist.

From article

Quote

The department's stated reason, however, seems reasonably clear and sensible—namely that they think people with such high scores will get bored with the job quickly and leave after obtaining expensive training.

That makes no since at all. That is a future police chief or politician. That is like saying the highest you will go in this career is a traffic cop. Although like I said I am not a cop, so I wouldn’t know.

If we are not at war with them what do you propose we should do about terrorist and those with a ways and means to harm us?

I think it varies. In some cases all we need to do is withdraw our military from the area. In other cases, treat them like organized crime. And very infrequently, drone them.

Remember when Presiden Bill Clinton bombed some tents in the desert and the repubs said he was just trying to distract from the Monica thing? Setting aside the fact that he was trying to kill Osama Bin Laden, a fight the Bush administration gave up on altogether, that was such a rare thing back then. When it happened, the president made an address to the whole nation from the oval office. Inerrupted regular programing and the whole thing. That's how big a deal it was. Now, people get bombed every week and no mention is made.

A good example of what NOT to do is to treat every action as a threat, and every threat as an act of war. That is what Israel does, IMHO. Treat a pregnant woman trying to cross a checkpoint to get to the hospital as a terrorist. Treat a 12-year old throwing a stone at a tank that is bulldozing his mother's house as a terrorist. And treat a Hamas leader firing a missile at a group of armed soldiers as a terrorist.

We have done the same thing in countries like Pakistan where we used to have allies. Now people are as afraid and angered by the US presence as they are by the terrorist groups. Because their relatives have been killed and hurt by both.

A better model might be the way England dealt with the IRA. Although my info is sketchy and mainly informed by movies and tv shows, they seemed to have dealt with it as organized criminal activity, not warfare.

I think part of the problem is that we, like Israel, have this huge powerful military with all this expertise and hardware, and we need to use it, or why have it? If we were more like England, and did not have all the missiles and drones, we would have to use intelligence and police procedure. Infiltrate their organizations. Pressure the leaders to negotiate some sort of truce or settlement. Address the root causes of the violence.

You know, maybe actually catch the truly bad guys and try them in court and put them in jail or execute them. But not blow them (or someone who looks like them, or someone standing too close to them) up from the air like real life is a Marvel comics movie.

We have done the same thing in countries like Pakistan where we used to have allies.

To be fair, pakistan was never our actual ally. They half heartedly helped us for the money we gave them on one hand, and on the other hand continued to fund, train and direct the very groups we were trying to fight. They see the Taliban as a necessary weapon for their country's security.

It was supposed to be a fun family outing to the movies, but then Nair Rodriguez' 19-year-old daughter got under her skin. They fought, she said, and she slapped her daughter.

Moments later, police arrived on a domestic dispute call at the Moore, Oklahoma, theater and confronted -- not Nair Rodriguez -- but her husband Luis. They took him down, and after the encounter on February 15, he was dead.

I suspect he was asphyxiated. He was pepper sprayed and had 5 adult men sitting on him.

Have you seen any evidence of the ACLU, or like, get involved with the civil suits on any cases like this? It seems like a golden opportunity to not only bring this kind of stupidity and abuse to light, but also to line some coffers.

But Moore Police Chief Jerry Stillings calls the actions of his officers "reasonable."

Holy shit, man.

Their actions were reasonable. What about the outcome? That is what they should be focusing on. Was this outcome reasonable? How did their supposedly reasonable actions lead to this outcome? They are there to investigate a domestic disturbance and a guy - who wasn't even involved - ends up dead. How in the world is that a reasonable outcome? If it were a bank robbery or a hostage situation, I can understand how you might say it culminating with a dead guy is a possibility or maybe even reasonable.

But this? This is not reasonable. This is just a cop covering his ass. The police seem to have lost all perspective of what their job is. The policies and procedures they have are exclusively for their protection and convenience without regard to how they impact the public.

I don't expect the police to be able to control every situation. I assume someone will occasionally freak out and warrant pepper spray or a whack across the thigh with a baton. But I just don't get this. I don't understand how you can say this was reasonable.

There were 5 cops sitting on top of the guy -- not one each holding down his arms and legs -- they were sitting on his butt, back and head. The guy was doomed.

The video clip I saw said that the family was having their own dispute/arguments and the father was trying to calm down the mother and daughter. It appears that police assumed that the father was the cause of the dispute and when they intervened the father became belligerent. Regardless, even if it takes 5 cops to take put someone on the ground they do not have to sit on him. One guy sitting over his lower back/buttocks is sufficient to keep him pinned. Having one on his upper back and another with a knee in the guys neck, he had no way to breath.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

They should try these techniques on themselves sometime. Once you cannot breathe, you freak out and struggle more. Calming down is not an option, even if you wanted to. And of course, cops interpret that to mean they need to use more force.